The phonology of fortis/lenis in Zapotec in - Natalie Operstein.

THE PHONOLOGY OF FORTIS/LENIS IN ZAPOTEC
IN THE LIGHT OF LOANWORDS FROM SPANISH
Natalie Operstein
1. Zapotec is a family of five to ten (Kaufman n.d.) languages of the
Otomanguean stock spoken mainly in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico. The phonemic
systems of most Zapotec dialects described to date are based on an opposition between
fortis and lenis consonants which runs through all or most of their obstruents and
sonorants. Even the consonants which are neutral with respect to the fortis/lenis
opposition (which is always the case with the glides and the fricatives /f/, /x ~ h/
borrowed from Spanish, and often with /r/, one or more affricates, and /m/, which is rare
in Zapotec) are sometimes said to pattern with either the fortis or the lenis series (e.g.
Munro and Lopez 1999:2; Regnier 1993:44; Nellis and Hollenbach 1980:92). The paired
and unpaired fortis and lenis consonants of a selected number of Zapotec dialects are
presented in Table 1. 1
TABLE 1
Fortis and Lenis Consonants in Selected Zapotec Dialects
______________________________________________________________________________________
Yateé Zoo Ca YB Mitla Gue SLQZ Isthmus Quieg. Coatlán Texm.
______________________________________________________________________________________
/p/ f f f f f f f f f f f
/b/ l l l l l l l l l l l
/t/ f f f f f f f f f f f
/d/ l l l l l l l l l l l
/k/ f f f f f f f f f f f
/g/ l l l l l l l l l l l
/k/ - - - f f - - - f k f
/g/ - - - l l - - - l l l
/k/ - - - - - - - - f - f
/g/ - - - - - - - - l - l
/ts/ - - f - f f f - - f -
/dz/ - - l - l l - - - - -
/t/ f f f f f f f f f f f
1

d/ l l l l l l - l l l l
/t/ - - - - - f - - - - -
/d/ - - - - - - - - - - -
/s/ f f f f f f f f f f f
/z/ l l l l l l l l l l l
// - f - f f f f f - f f
// - l - l l l l l - l l
// f f f f - f f - f - -
// l l l l - l l - l - -
/f/ - N/A f /loan loan N/A - f loan loan - N/A
/x/ - N/A f /loan loan N/A - f - loan - N/A
/h/ - - - - - - - N/A - - -
// N/A - - - - - - - - - -
/m:/ loan - f - f f f f - - -
/m/ loan N/A - N/A l l l - l? N/A N/A
/n:/ f f f f f f f f - - f
/n/ l l l l l l l l l? N/A l
/:/ - - - - - - - f - - -
// - - - - - - - l - - -
/l:/ f f f f f f f f - - f
/l/ l l l l l l l l l? N/A l
/r:/ - - f - f - f?/loan loan - - -
/r/ loan N/A l N/A l l l? l r? loan N/A
/j/ N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A N/A
/w/ N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A N/A
‘f’ and ‘l’ are fortis and lenis, respectively, ‘N/A’ means that the phoneme is not said to participate in the
fortis/lenis dichotomy, ‘-’ that the phoneme is not attested in this dialect, ‘loan’ that the phoneme is attested
only in Spanish loanwords and has not been considered in the light of the fortis/lenis division. ‘Zoo’ is
Zoogocho, ‘Ca’ is Cajonos, ‘YB’ is Yatzachi El Bajo, ‘SLQZ’ is San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec, ‘Gue’ is
Guelavía, ‘Quieg.’ is Quiegolani, ‘Texm.’ is San Lorenzo Texmelucan. For Isthmus Zapotec, I follow the
phonemic analysis suggested in Marlett and Pickett (1987); in the inventory given in Pickett et al.
(1998:121), /m/ is considered a lenis sonorant, there is a fortis/lenis pair r/rr, and // and /:/ are not cited
as part of the phonemic system. Quioquitani Zapotec, in addition to the obstruents in this table, is also said
to have the palatalized fortis/lenis pairs t/d, c/z, and s/z.
Descriptively, the distinction between the two series of consonants is expressed
differently in the sonorants than in the different groups of obstruents, and depends on the
syllable position of the consonant. Correlates of fortis/lenis in different dialects spoken
widely apart are of a recurring kind, and can be summarized in the form of a table: Table
2 shows at a glance differences in the behavior of fortis and lenis consonants in different
positions. Thus, fortis stops and affricates are always voiceless, aspirated word-finally,
and are never lenited; their lenis counterparts show subphonemic variation in voicing, no
2

aspiration, and a tendency towards fricativization. Fortis affricates and fricatives are also
said to have greater friction than their lenis counterparts. All fortis obstruents are said to
be articulated more tensely than the lenis ones, and are lengthened after a stressed vowel.
In sonorant consonants, the main distinguishing feature is the length: fortis sonorants are
longer than the lenis ones. Fortis lateral is always voiced, while the lenis lateral can be
devoiced and accompanied by friction. Both alveolar nasals are voiced, but only the lenis
one assimilates to the point of articulation of the following consonant. Word-finally, the
lenis alveolar nasal can be realized as velar or as the nasalization of the preceding vowel.
The fortis alveolar vibrant is a trill, and the lenis one is a tap. Until Avelino (2001), all
lenis consonants were claimed to lengthen the preceding vowel; Avelino has shown that,
at least in the dialect he investigated, the lengthening effect is confined to the obstruents.
TABLE 2
Correlates of Fortis/Lenis in Modern Zapotec Dialects
______________________________________________________________________________________
Word- Intervocalically Word-
initially after stressed V finally
______________________________________________________________________________________
f stops/affricates - voice - voice - voice
+ closure + closure + closure
- aspiration - aspiration + aspiration
- lengthening + lengthening - lengthening
l stops/affricates +/- voice +/- voice +/- voice
+/- closure +/- closure +/- closure
- aspiration - aspiration - aspiration
- length - length - length
lengthens preceding stressed V
f fricatives - voice - voice - voice
- lengthening + lengthening - lengthening
l fricatives +/- voice +/- voice +/- voice
- length - length - length
lengthens preceding stressed V
f sonorants + length + length + length
______________________________________________________________________________________
3

The correlates of fortis and lenis summarized above and in Table 2 received first
experimental confirmation in Jaeger’s (1983) study of the acoustic properties of Yateé
Zapotec consonants. This study suggests that the most important feature of the fortis/lenis
contrast is likely to be acoustic duration (Jaeger 1983:187-88). A phonetic study of the
fortis/lenis contrast in Yalálag Zapotec by Avelino (2001) confirms and further elaborates
this conclusion; in addition, Avelino discards intensity and articulatory strength as
responsible for the fortis/lenis contrast, a suggestion repeatedly made in the literature on
various Zapotec dialects (2001:84-87).
Swadesh (1947) related the fortis/lenis dichotomy in modern Zapotec to a
single/geminate distinction at the Proto-Zapotec level. In Swadesh’s view, supported and
further developed in Suárez (1973), Kaufman (1983, 1994), and Benton (1988), lenis
obstruents and the sonorants /l/ and /n/ go back to single consonants in Proto-Zapotec,
while their fortis counterparts originated in geminate consonants, some of which could
have sprung from consonant clusters. As regards the present-day fortis/lenis pairs m:/m
and r:/r, as well as the Isthmus Zapotec pair l:/l, only the lenis members of each pair go
back to Proto-Zapotec sources, while their fortis counterparts represent later
developments from other sources. Late creation of fortis counterparts to these sonorants
is likely to be the result of paradigmatic pressure from other fortis/lenis pairs in the
system. The immediate source of the newly developed fortis sonorants seems to have
been compensatory lengthening, cf. the correlation between Isthmus Zapotec fortis /l:/
and the length of the following vowel noted by Benton (1988:17), and that between fortis
/m:/ in SLQZ loanwords and the consonant clusters in their Spanish originals (e.g.
4

zh:ommreel < sombrero ‘hat’, cha’mm < chamba ‘work’, tye’eemm < tiempo ‘time’, and
xtro’oomm < trompo ‘top (toy)’).
The tendency to restore the system to symmetry is especially apparent in those
dialects in which the relationship between the fortis and the lenis members of the
opposition has ceased to be that of length. The gap between the fortis and lenis sonorants
is relatively small in Zaniza, Texmelucan, and Quioquitani Zapotec where, as the result
of palatalization of Proto-Zapotec *nn and *ll, // and // now function as the fortis
counterparts of /n/ and /l/, respectively. In Isthmus Zapotec, where the historical result of
Proto-Zapotec *ll is /nd/, the etymological fortis/lenis pair nd/l is no longer perceived as
such, which has probably contributed to the development of the non-etymological fortis
/l:/ mentioned above (Benton 1988:17). The tendency to restore the symmetry of the
fortis/lenis opposition is also apparent in the treatment of the reflexes of Proto-Zapotec
*ty (Suárez 1973, Kaufman 1983:111, Benton 1988:7-11). In those dialects or
environments where the outcome of *ty is a lenis stop or affricate, it is symmetrically
matched by the corresponding fortis stop or affricate resulting from its geminate
counterpart *tty. In the dialects or environments in which this proto-phoneme resulted in
a rhotic, it is no longer synchronically connectable to its etymological geminate
counterpart, which has triggered the development of a fortis alveolar rhotic to fill the
systemic gap (in Table 1, such dialects are Mitla, Cajonos, and possibly SLQ Zapotec).
Various kinds of evidence indicate that in the sixteenth century the phonemic
system of Zapotec already operated on the basis of a fortis/lenis dichotomy. The most
important early source of evidence is observations of Juan de Córdova, the first
missionary grammarian of Zapotec, on the pronunciation of Zapotec consonants and the
5

endering of Spanish words by the Zapotecs. Another, less direct but no less informative
source is the orthography employed by Córdova in his dictionary of the same dialect (cf.
Manrique 1966-67; Smith 2000), as well as the orthography of other writings dating from
the same period (Broadwell 2000). Yet another source of information on the phonemic
system of sixteenth-century Zapotec is Zapotec renderings of numerous Spanish
loanwords that entered its various dialects during the course of that century.
2. The phonemic system of sixteenth-century American Spanish has been studied
in great detail (for an extensive bibliography on the subject see, e.g., Parodi 1995). For
the phonemic system of contemporary Zapotec the only source currently available is an
in-depth study by Smith (2000) of the phonology of the Valley dialect described by Juan
de Córdova, based mainly on the orthography employed by Córdova in his dictionary of
this dialect (Córdova 1578b). The two phonemic systems are collated below (based on
Parodi 1995:40 and Smith Stark 2000:54).
16 th -c. Spanish 2 16 th -c. Valley Zapotec
p t t k p t t t k k
b d g b d d d g
z z
f s h s h
m n n
r: mm nn r
λ
l ll
w j w j
6

Some of the most salient differences between the above systems include the fact that
Spanish stops and fricatives constitute voiceless/voiced pairs while the corresponding
Zapotec obstruents are divided into fortis and lenis, and the fact that Spanish has three
series of sibilants and Zapotec only two. In addition, Zapotec has fortis and lenis versions
of each sonorant except the /r/ which, at least according to this interpretation of
Córdova’s Zapotec, was absent from the system altogether: instead of what appears in
modern dialects as /r/ Córdova often writes a , which is interpreted by Smith Stark as
an alveolar stop, or the lenis member of the pair spelled above as t/d (cf. discussion of its
possible surface phonetics in Smith 2000: 43-45). 3 Finally, Spanish has a labiodental
fricative which is alien to most Zapotec dialects.
3. The remainder of this paper examines the treatment of Spanish consonants in
the earliest layer of Spanish borrowings in Zapotec. The earliest layer of loanwords is
readily distinguishable from the more recent borrowings primarily by the treatment of
Spanish sibilants and the //. For this study, a large number of early Spanish loanwordss
in various dialects of Zapotec has been assembled (the dialects examined and the
borrowed vocabulary are listed in the Appendix). Where there is sufficient data, a
distinction is made between the three consonantal positions important from the viewpoint
of Zapotec phonology: word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final. Zapotec data are quoted
in the orthography of the original publications.
Stops and /f/
1(a) Spanish p-, b- (spelt , ) 4 > Zapotec b-:
7

paño ‘cloth, sash, kerchief’ > Z bay(-ij), T bay, Zoo bay, Ca béy, A payu, YB bey,
Co pai, I bayu’
papaya > MZ baii, YB pey (in other dialects borrowed late)
Pedro (name) > Z bed, Ca bε⊥d
peso (a coin) > Z bèzh, T peζ&, MZ beex, AZ beψ)u, I beζ&u
barato ‘cheap’ > Z bràd (in other dialects borrowed late)
vaca ‘cow’ > Z bàg, MZ baag, SLQZ baag
vigilia ‘vigil’ > Z bixily.
Occasionally, the developments b- > m- or m- > b- are also attested:
batea ‘tray’ > Z (yag-)mtey
botón ‘button’ > Z mu(n)tuny
muñeca ‘doll’ > I buñega’.
1(b) Spanish -p-, -b- (spelt , ) > Zapotec -b-:
Felipe (name) > Z lib, SLQZ Li’eb
zapato ‘shoe’ > Z txubat
compadre ‘godfather’ > SLQZ mbaaly, MZ mbaal, I mbale, A umpálí
caballo ‘horse’ > Z kwey, T kΩáy, MZ cabaii, Zoo cabayw, YB cabey, Co wai,
Q gay, SLQZ caba’i
chivo ‘goat’ > Z txib, YB/Zoo σ&ib, SLQZ zhi’eb
navaja ‘folding knife’ > Z nibàzh, SLQZ nabaazh, MZ nabaax
novillo ‘young bull’ > Z nibily, SLQZ (gùu’ann) nabii.
8

1(c) Spanish f > Zapotec p/b (if the names below were indeed borrowed early; cf. a
different treatment of /f/ in the late loan Fransye’scw < Francisco in the same dialect):
Florentino > SLQZ Ploory
Alfonsa > SLQZ Po’onnzy
Felix > SLQZ Pu’isy
Epifania > SLQZ Ba’nny.
2(a) Spanish t-, d- > Zapotec t-, d-:
taza ‘cup’ > Z tàz, T taz, A taza
teja ‘roofing tile’ > I (yoo) deζ&a (yoo ‘house’), SLQZ deezh
tijeras ‘scissors’ > Z tixer, MZ tixer, A tiyera, Q cer (< tser, cf. tmaz < Tomás)
timón ‘beam’ > Z (yag-)tim, SLQZ dye’mm
tomín (a coin) > A tummi
testigo > Z testiw, YB testigw, SLQZ testi’u
dinero ‘money’ > T tíny
domingo ‘Sunday’ > Z timiw, MZ duminngw, Zoo/YB dmigw, SLQZ
Domye’eenngw
durazno ‘peach’ > YB tlas, A trasu, M duras, SLQZ dura’azn.
2(b) Spanish -t-, -d- > Zapotec -t-, -d-:
aceite ‘oil’ > Z ased
Antonio (name) > Z Duny, SLQZ Nduuny (cf. also later To’nny)
barato ‘cheap’ > Z bràd
9

limeta ‘bottle’ > Z almet, Zoo lmet, YB lmet, Q lmet
capitán ‘captain’ > Z kaptá
chocolate > Zoo s(i)cwlat, YB σ&cwlat, A choculati, Z txulad, MZ chiculajd,
I dxuladi
morado > Z m(b)ràd (YB morad, Zoo moradw, A moradu are late)
testigo > Z testiw, YB testigw, SLQZ testi’u.
2(c) The treatment of dj and d / __ i presents a special case: if borrowed early enough,
they fall together with the reflexes of Proto-Zapotec *ty, cf.:
Dios ‘God’ > Z dyuzh, T nygyooz, SLQZ Dyooz (Zoo Dios and similar forms are
late borrowings)
medio (a coin) > Zoo mechw, YB mech, Ca m:ej
media ‘sock’ > T megy
remedio > YB rmech, SLQZ (Nnambied Dela)rmuudy
sandía > Z xindyi.
In at least one case, Spanish /r/ has a similar treatment:
naranja ‘orange’ > nchaxhu (Diccionario 1995:33).
Cf. the above treatments with the reflexes of Proto-Zapotec *ty in the same languages:
*ke:tyu ‘hole’ (Kaufman 1994:21) > Z gedy, SLQZ guèèe’dy, Zoo yechw,
YB yech
*latyi (tawo) ‘heart’ (Kaufman 1994:20) > Z lady, T (rat) lagy(ã)
*tyowa ‘mouth’ (Kaufman 1994:43) > Z rú’, T rù’, YB cho’a, SLQZ ru’uh,
10

A rú’a.
3(a) Spanish /k/- (spelt , )> Zapotec k- or g-:
canoa ‘trough’ > Z kanu
capitán ‘captain’ > Z kaptá
queso ‘cheese’ > Z kèzh, T kyez
cochi ‘pig’ > Z kutx, YB/Zoo coσ&, Co kuucc, A cuttsi, SLQZ cu’uch, MZ cuch
coles ‘cabbages’ > YB corix, A culiyi, Q kliz, SLQZ curehehizh, MZ curijxh 5
cruz ‘cross’ > Z kruz, T kruuz, Zoo cruz, YB coroz, A curuuts, MZ crujz
cuchillo ‘knife’ > MZ guchiil, Zoo cwsiyw, YB cwsiy, A gutsilu.
3(b) Spanish g-, -/k/-, -g- > Zapotec g-, -g-:
garbanzo ‘chickpea’ > Z garbaz, SLQZ garba’aannz
garrote ‘stick, staff’ > SLQZ garrood, A yarróté (g- > y- is regular)
vaca ‘cow’ > Z bàg, 6 MZ baag, SLQZ baag
azúcar ‘sugar’ > Z asug
amigo ‘friend’ > Z (a)miw, Zoo/YB migw, SLQZ amiiegw.
There is at least one attested case of g- > /k/-, which may have to do with the g- being
part of a cluster:
granada ‘pomegranate’ > Z karnad, SLQZ ca’rnaad.
3(c) Word-finally, some dialects drop velar stops before rounded vowels:
amigo ‘friend’ > Z (a)miw (but Zoo/YB migw, SLQZ amiiegw)
11

trigo ‘wheat’ > Z triw, MZ triuu, SLQZ tri’u (but Zoo trigw)
yegua ‘mare’ > Z yew, MZ yeuu (but YB yegw)
nigua ‘maggot’ > Z níw, T niw, Co niu, Q niw, SLQZ niuw (but MZ nigw)
banco ‘bank’, ‘bench’ > Z bãw (but SLQZ ba’aanngw, I bangu’)
testigo > Z testiw, SLQZ testi’u (but YB testigw)
domingo > Z timiw (but MZ duminngw, YB/Zoo dmigw, A domingu, SLQZ
Domye’eenngw).
(In a later layer of loans in the same dialects, the velars are preserved in this position, cf.
surco ‘furrow’ > Z xurk, T surk, MZ xurc, SLQZ zhu’arc.)
To summarize: (1) voiceless and voiced labial stops are borrowed as lenis, both
word-initially and intervocalically. One has to bear in mind, however, that word-initial
fortis /p/ is extremely rare in Zapotec (in some dialects it is not attested at all, cf. Avelino
2001:6; Nellis and Hollenbach 1980:93), so the lenis outcome is expected in that
position; (2) Spanish alveolar stops are borrowed as either fortis or lenis both
intervocalically and word-initially, while /d/ before /i/ is always treated as lenis; (3)
Spanish initial /k/- can be borrowed as fortis or lenis, while intervocalic -/k/-, along with
initial and intervocalic /g/, tends to be borrowed as lenis. Thus, only labial Spanish stops
are always borrowed into Zapotec as lenis. The alveolar and velar stops show a great deal
of vacillation in this respect, but at any rate the pattern of their borrowing does not
correlate with their voicing in Spanish. While the alveolar stops are borrowed as fortis or
lenis in approximately equal proportion, most initial /k/’s are borrowed as fortis and most
intervocalic /k/’s as lenis. This perhaps has to do with the frequency of distribution of the
fortis and lenis phonemes in native Zapotec words, or with different correlates of the
12

fortis/lenis distinction in the three series of early Zapotec stops. Thus, a careful study of
the treatment of stops in early Spanish loans in Zapotec only partially confirms
Kaufman’s (n.d.:18) observation that they, along with other obstruents, were borrowed as
lenis.
The affricate
In most dialects Spanish /t/ was borrowed as fortis, both word-initially and
intervocalically:
chocolate > Z txulad, Zoo s(i)cwlat, YB scwlat, Ca cíkwlát, MZ chiculajd
(but I dxuladi)
chivo ‘goat’ > Z txib, T ciib, Zoo/YB sib, Ca cib (but SLQZ zhi’eb)
coche ‘pig’ > Z kutx, MZ cuch, Zoo/YB cos, Co kuucc, A cuttsi, SLQZ cu’uch
cuchara ‘spoon’ > Zoo cwsar, YB c(w/o)sar (but SLQZ wzhyaar, I (g)udxara)
cuchillo ‘knife’ > MZ guchiil, Zoo cwsiyw, YB cwsiy, Z gutsilu, SLQZ bchiilly
(but I (g)udxíu)
macho ‘mule’ > Z matx, T mac, Zoo masw, YB mas (but MZ madz)
machete > Zoo maset, YB mset, Co macctt (but MZ madxed, SLQZ
mazhye’edy, Q mzæd)
mecha ‘wick’ > T mec, Ca m:ec. 7
Reflexes of this affricate in early loanwords coincide with those of Proto-Zapotec
geminate *cc in native morphemes, cf.:
13

*ccho-n(n)a ‘three’ (Benton 1988 #122 ) > Z txun, T con, Zoo sone, YB son, A
tsunná, Ca cón:é, MZ chon
Sibilants
*kiccha ‘hair’ (Benton 1988 #55)/*kittza(7) (Kaufman 1994:20) > Z gitx, T gyìc,
Zoo yisa’, YB yis’, A íttsa’ (íqquia), SLQZ gyihch, Co kìcc.
1(a) Spanish /s/ (spelt , ) and /z/ (spelt ) 8 > Zapotec /z/ and /s/:
arroz ‘rice’ > Z arùz, YB roz (Zoo ros, SLQZ rro’s are late)
azúcar ‘sugar’ > Z asug (MZ su’cr, Zoo/YB sucr, SLQZ sua’rc may be late)
ciudad ‘city’ > Z siwda, Zoo ciuda, YB syoda, SLWZ syudaa
cocinero ‘cook’ > Z kusnely
cruz ‘cross’ > Z cruz, Zoo cruz, YB coroz, MZ crujz (SLQZ cru’uhsy may be
late)
durazno ‘peach’ > YB tlas, A trasu, SLQZ dura’azn, MZ duras (all may be late)
garbanzo ‘chickpea’ > Z garbaz, SLQZ garba’aannz, MZ garbans (late)
mazo ‘mallet’ > Z mez, T mãz, Zoo/YB maz, SLQZ maaz, MZ mas (late)
mostaza ‘mustard’ > MZ (yag) muxtas (yag ‘tree’)
mozo ‘servant’ > Z mùz (MZ/Zoo/YB mos is late).
It is likely that part or all of the loanwords in which Spanish /s/ of /z/ > Zapotec /s/ were
borrowed later than those in which Spanish /s/ or /z/ > Zapotec /z/.
1(b) The treatment of in two loanwords can be taken as an indication of its affricated
pronunciation in Spanish. Spanish zapato ‘shoe’ was borrowed in Zaniza Zapotec as
txubat, and Spanish cruz ‘cross’ was borrowed in Atepec Zapotec as curuuts. Zaniza tx
14

and Atepec ts normally render Spanish ch (cf. chivo ‘goat’ > Z txib and cuchillo ‘knife’ >
A gutsilu). The treatment of in these loans is therefore consistent with its affricated
pronunciation (/ts/) in Spanish, and may be taken as evidence for a late survival of this
affricate.
2. Spanish // (spelt , ) and /⏐ / (spelt ) > Zapotec // or //:
sacristán > Z xundista, A yueda(yoto’) [yoto’ ‘temple, church’], SLQZ
sacax:taany
san, santo ‘saint’ > I (beu) zandu’; za(bizende) ‘San Vicente’, SLQZ Xann(daan)
‘Santa Ana’; Xmo’oony ‘Santa Mónica’
semana > Z ximan, YB sman, Zoo xman, A yumanu, Ca zm:an, SLQZ/MZ
xmaan
silla ‘chair’, ‘saddle’ > Z xily, T sily, MZ (yag)xhil, SLQZ zhi’iilly, A xila’
sombrero > MZ xhumbreel, SLQZ zh:ommreel
escuela > Z xikwal
camisa > Z mìzh, MZ (re-)gamizh, A miya, I gamiza
manso > Z màzh, T maz, YB max, MZ madx
misa ‘mass’ > Z mìzh, T míz, I míza’ , MZ mix, A miya (YB/Zoo mis, SLQZ
mye’es are late)
peso > Z bezh, T pez, MZ beex, A beyu, I bezu
Dios > Z dyuzh, T nygyooz, A (Tata) Diuy(a), I dyuzi, Q dyuz (< adiós)
Tomás > Z màzh, SLQZ Ma’azhy, Q tmaz
15

Luis > Z wizh, T wiiz.
In the dialects that currently distinguish (and probably did so in the sixteenth century)
between alveopalatal and retroflex sibilants, Spanish // and // were borrowed, with
very few exceptions, as alveopalatal.
3. Spanish // (spelt ) and // (spelt and ) > Zapotec // or //:
jabón ‘soap’ > I zabú
jarro ‘pitcher’ > A yaru(iyya) [iyya ‘flower’]
jeringa ‘syringe’ > I ziringa
jícara ‘calabash cup’ > Z xìg, I ziga, SLQZ zh:i’ahg, MZ xijg, YB xigu’
Juana (name) > Ca zwán, SLQZ Zh:ùaan
gigante > Z xigan
aguja ‘needle’ > A gúψ)á, MZ guux, SLQZ (guìi’ch)gwu’ùa’zh:
ajo ‘garlic’ > Z àzh, T az, Zoo/YB (cuan)ax, A gayu, SLQZ (xti)aazh, MZ aax
arveja ‘pea’ > A (daa)ribeyi (daa ‘beans’)
clavija ‘peg’ > Z (yag-)kabizh (yag ‘wood’), SLQZ garbiizh
mixe ‘Mixe’ > MZ miix, YB/Zoo mix, SLQZ Miìi’zh
naranja > T láz, A maraya, SLQZ nraazh, MZ naraax
navaja > Z nibazh, SLQZ nabaazh, MZ nabaax
tijeras ‘scissors’ > Z tixer, MZ tixer, Q cer (< tser), A tiyera, SLQZ (gyìe’b)
zhiier.
16

In dialects that currently distinguish between alveopalatal and retroflex sibilants, //
and // were borrowed as alveopalatal.
To summarize: (1) the affricate ch is mostly borrowed as fortis; (2) /s/ (and /z/)
are mostly borrowed as lenis, but in Zaniza zapato and Atepec cruz they are rendered like
Spanish ch and may reflect an affricated pronunciation of Spanish ; (3) Spanish
//, //, // and // are borrowed as fortis or lenis alveopalatal fricatives (// and //) word-
initially, and, with one exception, as lenis (//) intervocalically. Thus, the pattern of
rendering obstruents in Spanish loans that emerges is a complex one. As can be seen
from Table 3, the voicing of Spanish obstruents does not affect the borrowing pattern,
which instead seems to depend on other factors.
TABLE 3
Rendering of Spanish Obstruents in Early Zapotec
______________________________________________________________________________________
Word-initially Word-medially Word-finally
______________________________________________________________________________________
p, b (, ) l l not attested
t, d f/l f/l not attested
d+i l l not attested
/k/ f/l l not attested
g l l not attested
ch f f not attested
/s/, /z/ l l l
//, //, //, // f/l l l
4. The phonology of Córdova’s Zapotec based on a study of his orthography
(Smith Stark 2000) can be of some assistance in elucidating the above borrowing pattern.
The following traits of Córdova’s orthography appear to be relevant: (1) there seem to be
no examples of word-initial fortis /p/; (2) only the letters used for rendering voiceless
obstruents in Spanish are used in rendering fortis obstruents in Zapotec; (3) the letters
17

used for voiced obstruents in Spanish can be used in rendering Zapotec lenis segments
/b/, /g/, /z/, and /Ζ/; (4) both fortis and lenis dental stops are represented by the letter ;
(5) fortis obstruents in Córdova’s Zapotec were apparently lengthened in posttonic
syllables since the infrequent examples of double spelling of consonants are confined to
this position; (6) Zapotec /s/ and /z/ are reasonably well differentiated graphically, but
// and // are not (Smith 2000:32-33, 35-46). Additional information on the fortis/lenis
phonology of Córdova’s Zapotec may be found in his remarks in the Arte. Here, Córdova
enumerates such mistakes made, he says, mostly by Spaniards in their Zapotec, as
pronouncing intervocalic /b/ for /p/, /g/ for /k/ and vice versa, /z/ for /s/, initial /d/ for
Spanish /t/ (‘Doledo’ for ‘Toledo’), and (alveopalatal sibilant) for (retroflex
sibilant) (1578a:73). While it is likely that some of these observations reflect more on
Córdova’s Spanish than on his Zapotec, they seem to explain (1) the absence of the initial
fortis /p/ in rendering Spanish loans (explainable by the absence of initial /p/ in native
words), (2) the little role played by the voicing of Spanish obstruents in the overall
borrowing pattern and especially in that of the dental stops, and (3) the absence of
renderings of intervocalic Spanish /p/ and /k/ as fortis (explainable by the lengthening of
the native fortis obstruents in this position). In addition, Córdova’s observations on the
pronunciation mistakes that involve voiced and voiceless alveolar sibilants and only the
voiceless alveopalatal sibilant probably point to the voicelessness of // in his Spanish,
which in turn explains the under-differentiation of // and // in his Zapotec orthography.
5. Nasals
1(a) Spanish m > m in Zapotec:
18

macho ‘mule’ > Z matx, T mac, MZ madz, Zoo masw, YB mas
mazo ‘mallet’ > Z mez, Tmãz, Zoo/YB maz, SLQZ maaz, MZ mas
mula ‘female mule’ > Z/T muly, MZ mul, SLQZ muuall
almohada ‘pillow’ > Z almàd, YB lmad, SLQZ almwaad
amigo ‘friend’ > Z (a)miw, YB/Zoo migw, SLQZ amiiegw
limeta ‘bottle’ > Z almet, Zoo lmet, YB lmet
compadre ‘godfather’ > A umpali, SLQZ mbaaly, MZ mbaal, I mbale
comadre ‘godmother’ > I male, Ca m:ál
domingo > Z timiw, MZ duminngw, Zoo/YB dmigw, Z domingu, SLQZ
Domye’eenngw
semana ‘week’ > Z ximan, YB σ&man, Zoo xman, A yumanu, SLQZ/MZ xmaan.
1(b) Cases where Spanish /m/ was borrowed as fortis have to do with the loss of a
following consonant and subsequent compensatory lengthening of the nasal:
sombrero ‘hat’ > SLQZ zh:ommreel
timón ‘beam’ > SLQZ dye’mm
tiempo ‘time’ > SLQZ tye’eemm
trompo ‘top’ (toy) > SLQZ xtro’oomm
tomín (coin) > A tummi.
1(c) Some /m/’s in Zapotec loans resulted from other consonants:
batea ‘tray’ > Z (yag-)mtey
botón ‘button’ > Z mu(n)tuny
19

naranja ‘orange’ > A maraya, Ca m:raz, mbrhaxh (Diccionario 1995:33).
2(a) Spanish n- > lenis n- in Zapotec:
naranja ‘orange’ > SLQZ nraazh, MZ naraax
navaja ‘folding knife’ > Z nibazh, SLQZ nabaazh, MZ nabaax
nigua ‘maggot’ > Z niw, Co niu, SLQZ niuw, MZ nigw, Q niw
novillo ‘young bull’ > Z nibily, SLQZ (gùu’ann) nabii.
2(b) Spanish -n- > fortis or lenis -n- in Zapotec:
dinero ‘money’ > T tíny
mina ‘mine’ > T miny
panela ‘sugar loaf’ > Z pinyal
semana ‘week’ > Z ximan, YB sman, Zoo xman, A yumanu, SLQZ/MZ xmaan.
Spanish -n- tends to be lost before fricatives, but is preserved before stops:
garbanzo ‘chickpea’ > Z garbaz, SLQZ garba’aannz
manso ‘tame’ > Z màzh, T maz, YB max, MZ madx
naranja ‘orange’ > A maraya, Ca m:raz, T láz, SLQZ nraazh, MZ naraax
sandía ‘watermelon’ > Z xindyi, SLQZ xanndiia, I zandie’
culantro ‘cilantro’ > Z kulyandr, A culandru, SLQZ cura’aann
banco ‘bank’, ‘bench’ > SLQZ ba’aanngw, Z bãw, Zoo/YB bancw, I bangu’
domingo ‘Sunday’ > MZ duminngw, SLQZ Domye’eenngw, A domingu.
20

2(c) Word-final Spanish -n can be rendered by a fortis or lenis nasal, or be lost,
depending on the dialect:
sacristán > Z xundista, A yueda(yoto’), SLQZ sacax:taany
timón ‘beam’ > Z (yag-)tim, SLQZ dye’mm (-mm < *-mn; note also the stress
shift)
tomín (a coin) > A tummi
botón ‘button’ > Z mu(n)tuny, SLQZ btoony.
3(a) Spanish ñ > lenis n in Zapotec:
albañil ‘mason’ > Z arbanyil, YB/Zoo albanil
escaño ‘bench with a back’ > YB/Zoo xcan, MZ xcaan.
3(b) There is also one example of an early loan in which Spanish ñ > Zapotec y:
paño ‘cloth’ > Z bay(-ij), T bay, I bayu’, Co pai, A payu, YB bey, Zoo bay.
The uniform outcome of ñ as a glide, despite the fact that Córdova’s and doubtless other
dialects had or could have had a palatal nasal matching the Spanish ñ seems to argue for a
borrowing through the medium of Nahuatl, where y is one of the possible outcomes of
early Spanish ñ, and paño is reflected as payo (cf. González Casanova 1977:131, 146).
Liquids
1(a) Spanish l- > fortis or lenis l- in Zapotec:
lazo > T laz
limeta ‘bottle’ > Z almet, Zoo lmet, YB lmet, Q lmet
lunes ‘Monday’ > Z lunex, MZ lun, Zoo lun, YB (zha) lon, A luni, SLQZ Luuny
21

Lucas (name) > Z lyuj, T luk, SLQZ Lu’c.
1(b) Spanish -l- > fortis or lenis -l- in Zapotec:
alguacilillo (dim. of alguacil ‘constable’) > SLQZ lasliiery
culantro ‘cilantro’ > Z kulyandr (YB culantr, A culandru)
chocolate > Z txulad, Zoo s (i)cwlat, YB σ&cwlat, MZ chiculajd
escuela ‘school’ > Z xikwal
mezcal ‘agave liquor’ > Z mixcaly (Zoo mezcal, YB mescal, SLQZ mescaaly)
mole ‘stew with chili sauce’ > SLQZ mo’lly, MZ moll
mula ‘female mule’ > Z/T muly, MZ mul, SLQZ muuall
panela ‘sugar loaf’ > Z pinyal (YB/Zoo panel, MZ paneel)
real (a coin) > YB ryel ~ riel, A rriali, SLQZ rryeelly, MZ räjl
vigilia ‘vigil’ > Z bixily
Manuel (name) > Z wely, SLQZ Ne’ll
Pablo (name) > T baly
Samuel (name) > Z wely, T mel.
1(c) Zapotec fortis or lenis /l/ can result from other Spanish consonants:
from /r/:
cocinero ‘cook’ > Z kusnely
compadre ‘godfather’ > A umpali, SLQZ mbaaly, MZ mbaal, I mbale
comadre ‘godmother’ > I male
durazno ‘peach’ > YB tlas
22

from /d/:
naranja ‘orange’ > T láz
sombrero ‘hat’ > A umbrelu, MZ xhumbreel, SLQZ zh:ommreel;
medio (a coin) > SLQZ mùuully, MZ meel (and probably A belliu).
2(a) Spanish ll [×] > fortis or lenis l in Zapotec:
llave ‘key’ > SLQZ lye’i, MZ liäii
cuchillo ‘knife’ > MZ guchiil, A gutsilu, SLQZ bchiilly (but YB cwshiy,
Zoo cwshiyw, I gudxíu)
Castilla ‘Castile’ > ZooZ (dizha’)xtil,YB (dizhe’e)xtil, A (la’a)xtila, MZ
(didx)xtiil ‘Spanish (language)’ 9
manzanilla ‘camomile’ > MZ maNsanil (N = fortis /n/)
molinillo ‘hand mill’ > SLQZ mo/urniilly, MZ morniil
novillo ‘young bull’ > Z nibily
silla ‘chair’, ‘saddle’ > Z xily, T σ&ily, MZ (yag)xhil, SLQZ zhi’iilly, A xila’.
2(b) A couple of loans provide evidence of early yeísmo (i.e. the pronunciation of
Spanish ll as [y]):
caballo ‘horse’ > Z kwey, at káy, Co wai, YB cabey, MZ cabaii, Zoo cabayw,
SLQZ caba’i, Q gay
pollo ‘chicken’ > Co poi, I buyu’.
3(a) Spanish r- (a trill) > Zapotec rr-/r- (one example):
23

eal (a coin) > YB ryel ~ riel, A rriali, SLQZ rryeelly, MZ räjl.
3(b) Spanish -rr- and -r- > Zapotec (lenis) r:
arroz ‘rice’ > Z arùz, YB roz
barato ‘cheap’ > Z bràd (also MZ bará’t, Zoo baratw, YB barat, SLQZ baraa’t)
morado ‘purple’ > Z m(b)ràd (also YB morad, Zoo moradw, A moradu)
naranja ‘orange’ > A maraψ)a, SLQZ nraazh, MZ naraax
Andrés (name) > MZ ndré(h)zh.
3(c) Zapotec /r/ can also result from Spanish /l/ and //:
alguacilillo (dim. of alguacil ‘constable’) > SLQZ lasliiery
albañil ‘mason’ > Z arbanyil
alcalde ‘mayor’ > Zoo rcal, YB rcal, SLQZ rca’alldy
clavija ‘beam’ > SLQZ garbiizh, Z (yag-)kabizh
coles ‘cabbages’ > YB corix, Ca kórìσ&, SLQZ curehehizh, MZ curijxh
culantro ‘cilantro’ > SLQZ cura’aann
molinillo ‘hand mill’ > SLQZ mo/urniilly, MZ morniil.
In some cases (as in albañil, alcalde, molinillo) this development can be explained by
dissimilation.
In one case, Zapotec -r- has probably resulted from Zpanish -d-:
maravedí (an old coin) > Z mrí ‘money’, T mbrii ‘six centavos’. 10
To summarize the situation with the borrowing of sonorants: (1) Spanish /m/ is
borrowed as fortis only when the loss of the following consonant causes its compensatory
24

lengthening; (2) initial /n/ is borrowed as lenis, while intervocalic and word-final /n/ may
be borrowed as lenis or fortis. This situation may have something to do with the
distribution of the fortis and lenis /n/ in native Zapotec words: thus, Benton (1988:15-16)
does not reconstruct word-initial *nn- or intervocalic *-n- in his version of Proto-
Zapotec; (3) Spanish ñ is borrowed as lenis /n/, with the exception of the word paño,
likely to have been borrowed through Nahuatl, where Spanish ñ > Zapotec y; (4) Spanish
/l/ and // are borrowed as either fortis or lenis /l/ and occasionally as an /r/; (5) at least
two loanwords provide evidence for early yeísmo; (6) Spanish trilled /r/ is occasionally
borrowed as fortis in the dialects that distinguish between fortis and lenis /r/; (7) in a
number of cases, Spanish /r/ or /d/ have been borrowed as Zapotec fortis or lenis /l/.
6. In the loanwords that only recently entered Zapotec, the pattern of borrowing
has changed considerably. First, recent loans naturally reflect changes undergone by the
phonology of American Spanish since the sixteenth century. One of these is the
velarization of the palatal sibilant //, reflected in early loans such as A (daa)ribeyi <
arveja ‘pea’, to /x/. Second, prolonged exposure to the phonological system of Spanish
due to extensive lexical borrowing and massive bilingualism have exercised a powerful
influence on the borrowing strategies of the individual dialects and of Zapotec as a
whole. Changes in the borrowing pattern are partly due to the introduction of the
phonemes /f/, /x/ (or /h/), and in some cases /r/ (e.g., in Coatlan Zapotec, cf. Robinson
1963) in the phonological systems of Zapotec dialects. Thus, while in earlier loans both
/f/ and /x/ were rendered by stops (cf. YB lberg, SLQZ albe’erg < arveja ‘pea’), in more
recent borrowings they are borrowed as fricatives (cf. MZ alberj ‘pea’). 11 Exposure to
25

Spanish has also reinforced contrasts that existed in Zapotec only at a subphonemic level,
triggering rearrengements in the distribution of native phonemes. Both types of influence
can be observed when comparing the treatment of Spanish consonants in the early and the
more recent strata of borrowed vocabulary. Thus, in Cajonos Zapotec both voiced and
voiceless Spanish obstruents are usually reflected in early loans as lenis (e.g. béy < paño,
bd < Pedro); in recent loans Spanish voiceless stops are borrowed as fortis, and voiced
stops as lenis. This borrowing pattern has caused fortis /p/ to appear in word-initial
position, which it never does in native words, and has also led to a greater importance of
voicing in contrasting the two series of obstruents (cf. Nellis and Hollenbach 1980:93,
104-05). 12 /r/ and /l/ in the same dialect sometimes replace each other in early borrowings
(e.g. m:ál < comadre ‘godmother’, kórìs < coles ‘cabbages’), but in recent loans they are
borrowed as /r/ and /l/, respectively, possibly due the introduction of a greater contrast
between the two liquids owing to a steady flow of Spanish loans. Also, while in early
loans Spanish trilled /r/ was borrowed as lenis, in later loans it can be rendered in Zapotec
by a fortis rhotic, cf. címa r < chamarra ‘blanket’ (an old loan) versu r:ey < raya ‘line’ (a
recent loan). It has already been hypothesized above that fortis /r/ is a recent innovation
in some Zapotec dialects, conceivably triggered by a synchronic dissociation between
lenis /r/ and its etymological fortis counterpart. It is also likely that this Zapotec-internal
development received additional reinforcement from the existence of two rhotics in
Spanish loanwords.
Dialects other than Cajonos Zapotec show comparable adjustments in their
borrowing strategies, generally in the direction of a greater attuning to the phonology of
Spanish. Among these may be mentioned the change in the rendering of Spanish /n/ and
26

l/: while in early loans these could be rendered with both fortis and lenis native
phonemes without a discernible distributional pattern, in later loans they are mostly
borrowed as lenis. Some differences in the treatment of Spanish consonants in the early
and late loans are summarized in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Changes in the Pattern of Consonant Borrowing
______________________________________________________________________________________
Spanish consonants Early loans Recent loans
______________________________________________________________________________________
p-b, t-d, k-g borrowed as f or l; borrowed as f or l;
voicing unimportant borrowing pattern
for distribution based on voicing
s borrowed as l borrowed as f
f borrowed as /p/, /b/ borrowed as /f/
j [x/h] borrowed /g/ borrowed as [x/h]
m borrowed as /m/ borrowed as /m/
n borrowed as f or l borrowed as l
l borrowed as f or l borrowed as l
r borrowed as l borrowed as l
rr borrowed as l borrowed as f or l
7. This paper has examined the adaptation of Spanish loanwords in various
Zapotec dialects. Although the main focus of the paper has been early loans, changes in
the borrowing strategy that occurred between the earliest and the more recent layers of
loans have also been considered. A comparison of the borrowing patterns during these
periods indicates that contact with Spanish has exercized a considerable influence on
Zapotec phonology, the most salient elements of which are the introduction of the
phonemes /f/, /x/ and (possibly) /r/, triggering of a greater importance of voicing in the
fortis/lenis opposition of obstruents (cf. Smith Stark 2000), changes in the distrubution of
/p/, (possibly) the creation of a greater contrast between /r/ and /l/, and phonemicization,
in some dialects, of a fortis /r/.
27

NOTES
1 In addition to the dialects whose consonantal inventories are presented in Table
1, the phonological systems of Yalálag, Choapan, Atepec, Quioquitani, Elotepec, Zaniza,
and Córdova’s (= 16 th -century Valley) Zapotec have also been examined.
2 I give here the consonantal inventory of the more conservative Toledan dialect as
it presents the greatest number of phonemic contrasts. While this is not essential with
respect to such features as sibilant voicing and the preservation of // as a separate
phoneme (both lost by that time in the Old Castilian dialect), it is important for the
contrastive status of /s (z)/ and / ()/ (which by that time had already merged in
Andalusian). And, even though this inventory assumes that the old affricates /ts/ and /dz/
had already given way to the corresponding fricatives, at least two early loans provide
support for their affricated pronunciation (see below). The only evidence for early yeísmo
is provided by the treatment of in the word caballo ‘horse’. (On the phonology of
sixteenth-century American Spanish see, e.g., Lapesa 1980:282ff, Rivarola 1991:450ff,
Parodi 1995:39ff, and the extensive bibliography cited therein.)
3 Córdova (1578a:73) notes what amounts to dialectal variation in this respect: “A
la. r. hazen que sirua de. t. vt torobaya, pro totobaya. Ciroo, pro citao” (‘they make r
serve as t, as in torobaya for totobaya, ciroo for citao’).
4 Spanish loans in Zapotec, unlike the contemporary borrowings in Nahuatl (cf.
González Cazanova 1977:144, 149), Mayan (cf. Parodi 1987:346-47 and 1995:50-51)
and some other Mesoamerican languages (cf. Campbell 1991:171-72; Canfield 1934:210-
16) do not give evidence of a phonemic difference in the pronunciation of /b/ (< Latin
-p-, b-) and // (< Latin -v-, -b-). The outcomes of intervocalic -b- in the word caballo in
28

the dialects which drop the pretonic vowel, such as Z (kwey) cannot be taken as an
evidence of its fricativized pronunciation since the native cluster /kb/ has the same
outcome (cf. Z kwez, the Potential form of bez ‘to cry, to shout’).
5 The agreement of several Zapotec dialects makes it unnecessary to analyze the
second part of the word as Ca yìσ& ‘grass’ (Nellis and Hollenbach 1980:104). Borrowing
through Nahuatl or another medium is likely in this case (cf. Nahuatl colex < Spanish
coles cited in González Casanova 1977:151). Comparable forms in other Mesoamerican
languages are quoted in Campbell (1991:176).
6 In the treatment of Spanish intervocalic /k/ or clusters containing it Zaniza
Zapotec distinguishes three layers of loanwords. In the earliest layer, -/k/- > -g-, as in
vaca ‘cow’ > bàg. In a later layer, Sp. -/k/- > -j- (phonetically [h]), e.g. loco ‘mad’ > loj,
Lucas > Lyúj, Francisco > Sijw (the treatment of Spanish /s/ here is also different from
that of the earliest loans). In the most recent borrowings, Spanish -/k/- > Z -k-.
7 In more recent loans, Spanish ch is borrowed as such in both Cajonos and Atepec
(cf. Nellis and Hollenbach 104).
8 Zapotec borrowings in general are not a good source of information on the
voicing of sibilants.
9 Numerous other words, mostly names of objects new to Mesoamerican economy,
contain the word ‘Castilla’ as a component part, for example YB yetxtil ‘bread’ (yet
‘tortilla’), za’axtil ‘pomegranate’ (za’a ‘ear of corn’), bi’oxtil ‘maggot’ (bi’o ‘flea’),
yaxtil ‘tall reed’ (ya ‘reed’); ZooZ zaxtil ‘pomegranate’, yetextil ‘bread’; Co yokssttill
‘soap’; A ettaxtila ‘bread’, daaxtila ‘(broad) bean’ (daa ‘(kidney) bean’), yua’xtila
‘wheat’ (yua’ ‘maize’); SLQZ gueht x:tiilly ‘pan’, bihx:tiilly ‘soap’; MZ yätxtiil ‘bread’,
29

säxtiil ~ zäxtiil ‘pomegranate’ (zä’ ‘ear of corn’), biäxtiil ‘soap’, bedzxtiil ‘mint’ (bedz-
‘seed of fruit’), manxanilxtiil ‘camomile sp.’.
10 I thank Dr. Kevin Terraciano for suggesting to me this etymology. Phonetically,
the reduction of a four-syllable word to one syllable is not unusual (cf. T dì from Spanish
melodía). As one of the strategies for adjusting Spanish words to the mostly bisyllabic
structure of Zapotec vocabulary, there is a tendency, especially in early loans, to drop
pretonic syllables (e.g. Z mìzh < camisa ‘shirt’; Co wai < caballo ‘horse’; Zoo lmet, YB
lmet < limeta ‘bottle’; YB/Zoo migw, Z miw < amigo ‘friend’; A yèrù < agujero ‘hole’).
In some cases, only the pretonic vowel drops (MZ mbaal, SLQZ mbaaly < compadre
‘godfather’; YB/Zoo xcan, MZ xcaan < escaño ‘bench with a back’; Z kwey, T káy, Q
gay < caballo ‘horse’; YB/Zoo dmigw < domingo ‘Sunday’; YB rmech, SLQZ
[…]rmuudy < remedio). This tendency, however, is counterbalanced by the many
instances in which the pretonic syllable or syllables have been preserved.
11 Other examples of this borrowing chronology include Co (kos)ak < ajo ‘garlic’
(early shape of the word preserved e.g. in Z àzh); A mécú < bermejo ‘vermilion’, necu <
conejo ‘rabbit’ (the more recent loan in A is cuneju; the original palatal fricative is
reflected, with metathesis, in Ca znékw), yèrù < *geru < agujero ‘hole’ (g- > y-/__i, e in
A; a sixteenth-century treatment of the same fricative can be seen in A gúψ)á < aguja
‘needle’); T ãnk, SLQZ a’nngl < angel (cf. more recent T ãhy < Ángela, SLQZ
Anjalye’nn < Angelina).
12 Explanation of the treatment of Spanish obstruents in recent loans in terms of
coexistent phonemic systems (cf. Fries and Pike 1949) is also possible. Such an
30

explanation would assume that in the speech of bilinguals Spanish obstruents are
contrasted as voiced and voiceless and native obstruents as fortis and lenis.
31

APPENDIX
(1) Spanish loanwords were examined in the following Zapotec dialects:
(a) Northern: Atepec (A), Cajonos (Ca), Yatzachi El Bajo (YB), Zoogocho (Zoo);
(b) Central: Isthmus Zapotec (I), Mitla (MZ), San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec (SLQZ);
(c) Southern: Santa María Coatlán Zapotec (Co), Quiegolani (Q);
(d) Westerm: San Lorenzo Texmelucan Zapotec (T), Zaniza Zapotec (Z).
There have been only two studies devoted to Spanish loanwords in Zapotec,
Fernández’ (1965) paper on Mitla and Pickett’s (1992) article on Isthmus Zapotec. The
other loans on which the present study is based were culled from various dictionaries and
wordlists, as follows:
Atepec: Neil Nellis and Jane Goodner de Nellis. 1983. Diccionario zapoteco de Juarez.
México, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano;
Cajonos: Nellis and Hollenbach 1980;
Yatzachi El Bajo: Butler, Inez M. 1997. Diccionario zapoteco de Yatzachi. Tucson, AZ:
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano;
Zoogocho: Long, Rebecca C., and Sofronio Cruz M. 1999. Diccionario zapoteco de San
Bartolomé Zoogocho, Oaxaca. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Isthmus: Pickett, Velma B. 1992. Palabras de préstamo en zapoteco del Istmo. Scripta
philologica in honorem Juan M. Lope Blanch, ed. Elizabeth Luna Traill, pp. 69-
76. México: UNAM // Pickett, Velma et al. 1979. Vocabulario zapoteco del
Istmo. México, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano;
Mitla: Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa. 1965. Préstamos españoles en el zapoteco de
Mitla. AINAH 17:259-73 // Stubblefield, Morris, and Carol Miller de
32

Stubblefield. Diccionario zapoteco de Mitla, Oaxaca. México, D.F.: Instituto
Lingüístico de Verano;
SLQZ: Munro and Lopez 1999;
Coatlán: Robinson 1963;
Quiegolani: Regnier 1993;
Texmelucan: Speck, Charles H. 1978. The phonology of Texmelucan Zapotec verb
irregularity. M.A. thesis, University of North Dakota;
Zaniza: author’s field notes.
(2) The most recurring of the early Spanish loans belong to several lexical
categories. The loanwords that may have entered Zapotec later than the sixteenth century
are given in brackets.
Plants and foodstuffs: aceite, ajo, arveja, arroz, azúcar, col, (cuajo), culantro, chocolate,
(durazno), garbanzo, granada, mezcal, mole, mostaza, naranja, pan,
panela, papaya, queso, sandía, trigo.
Animals: caballo, cochi, conejo, chivo, macho, mico, micho, mula, nigua,
novillo, pollo, (toro), vaca, yegua.
Utensils and the like: aguja, almohada, batea, (bolsa), botón, canoa, clavija, cuchara,
cuchillo, escaño, esquina, estaca, (gancho), garrote, (horno), jabón,
jarro, jícara, lazo, limeta, machete, mazo, mecha, mesa, molinillo,
(muñeca), navaja, paño, plato, servilleta, silla, silla de montar,
(surco), taza, teja, tijeras, timón, (tienda, tinta, tiro, trompo).
Dress: camisa, (cincho, cinta), media, sombrero, zapato.
33

Professions/institutions:albañil, alcalde, banco, capitán, Castilla, (ciudad), cocinero,
escuela, mozo, pastor, soldado, testigo.
Money: dinero, maravedí, medio, peso, tomín, real.
Religion: anima, amigo, comadre, compadre, cruz, dios, gigante, misa,
remedio, sacristán, santo, (vicio), vigilia.
Calendar: domingo, (lunes, sábado), semana, (tiempo).
Adjectives and misc.: (azul), barato, hasta, (loco), manso, morado.
Proper names: Andrés, José, Juan, Juana, Lucas, Luis, Luisa, mixe, Pablo, Pedro,
Tomás.
34

REFERENCES
Avelino, Heriberto. 2001. The phonetic correlates of fortis-lenis in Yalálag Zapotec
consonants. M.A. thesis, UCLA.
Benton, Joseph. 1988. Proto-Zapotec phonology. Ms.
Broadwell, Aaron. 2000. Fortis/lenis distinctions in early Zapotecan manuscripts. Paper
read at the conference La voz indígena de Oaxaca, Los Angeles, 19-20 May 2000.
Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Los hispanismos y la historia fonética del español en América. El
español en América: actas del III Congreso Internacionald del Español de
América, ed. C. Hernández et al., vol. 1, pp. 171-179. Valladolid: Junta de
Castilla y León.
Canfield, Delos Lincoln. 1934. Spanish literature in Mexican languages as a source for
the study of Spanish pronunciation. New York: Instituto de las Españas en los
Estados Unidos.
Córdova, Juan de. 1886 [1578a]. Arte del idioma zapoteco. Facsimile edition. México:
Ediciones Toledo.
_____. 1886 [1578b]. Vocabvlario en lengva çapoteca. Facsimile edition. México:
Ediciones Toledo.
Diccionario zapoteco-español: reglas para el entendimiento de las variantes dialectales de
la sierra hecho por los zapotecos de la variante del sector xhon. 1995.Yojovi,
Solaga, Oaxaca: Zanhe Xbab SA, A.C.
Fries, Charles C., and Kenneth L. Pike. 1949. Coexistent phonemic systems. Language
25:29-50.
González Casanova, Pablo. 1977. Estudios de lingüística y filología nahuas, ed.
Ascensión H. de León-Portilla. México: UNAM.
Jaeger, Jeri J. 1983. The fortis/lenis question: evidence from Zapotec and Jawoñ. Journal
of Phonetics 11:177-89.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1994. Proto-Zapotec reconstructions. Ms.
_____. 1983. New perspectives on comparative Otomanguean phonology. Ms.
_____. n.d. The phonology and morphology of Zapotec verbs. Ms.
Lapesa, Rafael. 1980. Historia de la lengua española. 8 th ed. Madrid: Gredos.
35

Manrique Castañeda, Leonardo. 1966-67. El zapoteco de fray Juan de Córdoba. Anuario
de Letras 6:203-11.
Marlett, Stephen A., and Velma B. Pickett. 1987. The syllable structure and aspect
morphology of Isthmus Zapotec. IJAL 53:398-422.
Munro, Pamela, and Felipe H. Lopez. 1999. Di’csyonaary X:tèe’n Dìi’zh Sah Sann
Lu’uc/San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec dictionary/Diccionario zapoteco de San Lucas
Quiaviní. UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
Nellis, Donald G., and Barbara E. Hollenbach. 1980. Fortis versus lenis in Cajonos
Zapotec phonology. IJAL 46:92-105.
Parodi, Claudia. 1995. Orígenes del español americano. Vol. 1. Reconstrucción de la
Pronunciación. México: UNAM.
_____. 1987. Los hispanismos en las lenguas mayances. Studia humanitatis: homenaje a
Rubén Bonifaz Nuño, ed. A. Ocampo, pp. 339-49. México: UNAM.
Pickett, Velma B., et al. 1998. Gramática popular del zapoteco del Istmo. Juchitán,
México: Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Binnizá A.C. and Tucson, AZ:
Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Regnier, Sue. 1993. Quiegolani Zapotec phonology. SIL-University of North Dakota
Work Papers 37:37-63.
Rivarola, José Luis. 1991. En torno a los orígenes del español de América. Scripta
philologica in honorem Juan M. Lope Blanch, ed. Elizabeth Luna Traill, vol. 1,
pp. 445-68. México: UNAM.
Robinson, Dow F. 1963. Field notes on Coatlan Zapotec. Hartford Seminary Foundation.
Smith Stark, Thomas C. 2000. La ortografía del zapoteco en el Vocabvlario de fray Juan
de Córdova. Ms.
Suárez, Jorge A. 1973. On Proto-Zapotec phonology. IJAL 39:236-49.
Swadesh, Morris. 1947. The phonemic structure of Proto-Zapotec. IJAL 13:220-30.
36